Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Operations Standards”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Detect and Avoid Display Evaluations in Support of SC-228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards Development

The primary activity for the UAS-NAS Human Systems Integration (HSI) sub-project in Phase 1 was support of RTCA Special Committee 228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). We provide data on the effect of various Detect and Avoid (DAA) display features with respect to pilot performance of the remain well clear function in order to determine the minimum requirements for DAA displays.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Effects of Severity of Losses of Well Clear on Minimum Operations Performance Standards End-To-End Verification and Validation Simulation Study for Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System Using Detect and Avoid Systems

As Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) make their way to mainstream aviation operations within the National Airspace System (NAS), research efforts are underway to develop a safe and effective environment for their integration into the NAS. Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems are required to account for the lack of “eyes in the sky” due to having no human on-board the aircraft. The technique, results, and lessons learned from a detailed End-to-End Verification and Validation (E2-V2) simulation study of a DAA system representative of RTCA Special Committee(SC)-228’s proposed Phase I DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS), based on specific test vectors and encounter cases, will be presented in this paper.

Ghatas, Rania W.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Nutrition Requirements, Standards, and Operating Bands for Exploration Missions

The challenge was brought forward in early 2005 to define the nutritional requirements for Exploration missions, and to define the relevant standards and associated operating bands related to nutrition. This document is the result of this charge. An extensive review of existing knowledge was conducted with participation of intramural and extramural experts, and the findings are summarized herein. In short, the approach taken was to define the nutrient intake requirements, that is, the amount of each nutrient expected to be available in the food system. The standards are defined as markers of nutritional status, with optimal (green), sub-optimal (yellow), and critical (red) levels for each. For many of the nutrient requirements, it is not known if they are altered during space flight. Furthermore, in many cases the intake of a nutrient may act as a countermeasure to one or more negative effects of space flight, but these potential countermeasures, too, are not well defined. Thus, we have also documented herein the areas where further research is required. Accordingly, while this document is intended as a comprehensive summary of our knowledge to date, it is expected that this is the first edition of these requirements and standards. As we learn more about space-flight nutrition, and as relationships between disease and nutrients are further defined in Earth-based populations, this document, and the approach to nutrition in the space rogram, will need to be updated accordingly.

Neubek, Deborah J.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Designing Flight-Deck Procedures

A complex human-machine system consists of more than merely one or more human operators and a collection of hardware components. In order to operate a complex system successfully, the human-machine system must be supported by an organizational infrastructure of operating concepts, rules, guidelines, and documents. The coherency of such operating concepts, in terms of consistency and logic, is vitally important for the efficiency and safety of any complex system. In high-risk endeavors such as aircraft operations, space flight, nuclear power production, manufacturing process control, and military operations, it is essential that such support be flawless, as the price of operational error can be high. When operating rules are not adhered to, or the rules are inadequate for the task at hand, not only will the system's goals be thwarted, but there may also be tragic human and material consequences. To ensure safe and predictable operations, support to the operators, in this case flight crews, often comes in the form of standard operating procedures. These provide the crew with step-by-step guidance for carrying out their operations. Standard procedures do indeed promote uniformity, but they do so at the risk of reducing the role of human operators to a lower level. Management, however, must recognize the danger of over-procedurization, which fails to exploit one of the most valuable assets in the system, the intelligent operator who is "on the scene." The alert system designer and operations manager recognize that there cannot be a procedure for everything, and the time will come in which the operators of a complex system will face a situation for which there is no written procedure. Procedures, whether executed by humans or machines, have their place, but so does human cognition.

Degani, Asaf↗
NASA NTRS2006

Control of Technology Transfer at JPL

Controlled Technology: 1) Design: preliminary or critical design data, schematics, technical flow charts, SNV code/diagnostics, logic flow diagrams, wirelist, ICDs, detailed specifications or requirements. 2) Development: constraints, computations, configurations, technical analyses, acceptance criteria, anomaly resolution, detailed test plans, detailed technical proposals. 3) Production: process or how-to: assemble, operated, repair, maintain, modify. 4) Manufacturing: technical instructions, specific parts, specific materials, specific qualities, specific processes, specific flow. 5) Operations: how-to operate, contingency or standard operating plans, Ops handbooks. 6) Repair: repair instructions, troubleshooting schemes, detailed schematics. 7) Test: specific procedures, data, analysis, detailed test plan and retest plans, detailed anomaly resolutions, detailed failure causes and corrective actions, troubleshooting, trended test data, flight readiness data. 8) Maintenance: maintenance schedules and plans, methods for regular upkeep, overhaul instructions. 9) Modification: modification instructions, upgrades kit parts, including software

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Project 2.8: Biological Specimen Repository for the Mayak Project

Curation of the existing specimens, including Standard Operating Procedures: The Southern Urals Biophysics Institute (SUBI) will continue to manage the day-to-day operations of the biorepository, but will have to assume the financial costs of maintaining and purchasing equipment such as freezers; Standard Operating Procedures are already in place for all aspects of the operations, and the Georgetown University team will be available on a voluntary and ad hoc basis to answer any technical questions in the future. Acquisition and tracking of new specimens: SUBI will decide on the collection of new tissues and blood samples in the future, and on what scale, depending on available resources and research needs. The Georgetown University team is willing to provide advice on a voluntary and ad hoc basis. Procedures for receiving and approving specimen requests from users: SUBI can take over this function; Chris Loffredo and other qualified research scientists at Georgetown University would be willing to serve as Tissue Review Committee members on a voluntary and ad hoc basis. Biospecimens remaining at Georgetown University: pursuant to the original terms of the Biospecimen Transfer Agreement between SUBI and Georgetown University, all unused portions of specimens (FFPE blocks, slides, and frozen tissues) will be returned to SUBI at the conclusion of the approved scientific research for which they were transferred. It was anticipated that the return shipment of biospecimens would occur in the fall of 2023. However, at this time, due to international developments, there are no shipping companies who can provide such deliveries to Russia. For now, the biospecimens can remain at Georgetown University where they are stored at the Genomics and Epigenomics Shared Resource. There have not been any storage costs to date, but this could change in the future.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2015

Commercialization and Standardization Progress Towards an Optical Communications Earth Relay

NASA is planning to launch the next generation of a space based Earth relay in 2025 to join the current Space Network, consisting of Tracking and Data Relay Satellites in space and the corresponding infrastructure on Earth. While the requirements and architecture for that relay satellite are unknown at this time, NASA is investing in communications technologies that could be deployed to provide new communications services. One of those new technologies is optical communications. The Laser Communications Relay Demonstration (LCRD) project, scheduled for launch in 2018 as a hosted payload on a commercial communications satellite, is a critical pathfinder towards NASA providing optical communications services on the next generation space based relay. This paper will describe NASA efforts in the on-going commercialization of optical communications and the development of inter-operability standards. Both are seen as critical to making optical communications a reality on future NASA science and exploration missions. Commercialization is important because NASA would like to eventually be able to simply purchase an entire optical communications terminal from a commercial provider. Inter-operability standards are needed to ensure that optical communications terminals developed by one vendor are compatible with the terminals of another. International standards in optical communications would also allow the space missions of one nation to use the infrastructure of another.

lasers↗
NASA NTRS2016

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: KDP-A for Phase 2 Minimum Operational Performance Standards

UAS Integration in the NAS Project has: a) Developed Technical Challenges that are crucial to UAS integration, aligned with NASA's Strategic Plan and Thrusts, and support FAA standards development. b) Demonstrated rigorous project management processes through the execution of previous phases. c) Defined Partnership Plans. d) Established path to KDP-C. Request approval of Technical Challenges, execution of partnerships and plans, and execution of near-term FY17 activities. There is an increasing need to fly UAS in the NAS to perform missions of vital importance to National Security and Defense, Emergency Management, and Science. There is also an emerging need to enable commercial applications such as cargo transport (e.g. FedEx). Unencumbered NAS Access for Civil/Commercial UAS. Provide research findings, utilizing simulation and flight tests, to support the development and validation of DAA and C2 technologies necessary for integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System.

pilotless aircraft↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial Performance Evaluation of Flight Path Management Onboard Automation

Significant developments in automation are necessary to achieve safe and efficient operations in advanced aerial mobility related concepts. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is rapidly growing, emerging field that poses a challenging use case with a tighter scale of operations compared to the traditional commercial transport paradigm. A large part of the challenge is the uncharted territory; as of this paper, no set of operational standards or guidelines for UAM operations have been established and automated en route operations for UAM level 4 (UML-4) have not been studied. Flight Path Management (FPM) automation provides a set of capabilities that are critical toward enabling airborne vehicles to achieve mission success while maintaining operational safety. An initial performance evaluation of FPM automation was conducted using a UAM-adapted version of the Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP), an onboard trajectory management capability developed over years of research targeting commercial transport operations, as its reference implementation. This paper describes the evaluation, including the approach and methodology for simulating FPM automation in UML-4, key results, future work, and conclusions.

flight path management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial Performance Evaluation of Flight Path Management Onboard Automation

Significant developments in automation are necessary to achieve safe and efficient operations in advanced aerial mobility related concepts. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is rapidly growing, emerging field that poses a challenging use case with a tighter scale of operations compared to the traditional commercial transport paradigm. A large part of the challenge is the uncharted territory; as of this paper, no set of operational standards or guidelines for UAM operations have been established and automated en route operations for UAM level 4 (UML-4) have not been studied. Flight Path Management (FPM) automation provides a set of capabilities that are critical toward enabling airborne vehicles to achieve mission success while maintaining operational safety. An initial performance evaluation of FPM automation was conducted using a UAM-adapted version of the Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP), an onboard trajectory management capability developed over years of research targeting commercial transport operations, as its reference implementation. This paper describes the evaluation, including the approach and methodology for simulating FPM automation in UML-4, key results, future work, and conclusions.

flight path management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRS2004

CCSDS Spacecraft Monitor and Control Service Framework

This CCSDS paper presents a reference architecture and service framework for spacecraft monitoring and control. It has been prepared by the Spacecraft Monitoring and Control working group of the CCSDS Mission Operations and Information Management Systems (MOIMS) area. In this context, Spacecraft Monitoring and Control (SM&C) refers to end-to-end services between on- board or remote applications and ground-based functions responsible for mission operations. The scope of SM&C includes: 1) Operational Concept: definition of an operational concept that covers a set of standard operations activities related to the monitoring and control of both ground and space segments. 2) Core Set of Services: definition of an extensible set of services to support the operational concept together with its information model and behaviours. This includes (non exhaustively) ground systems such as Automatic Command and Control, Data Archiving and Retrieval, Flight Dynamics, Mission Planning and Performance Evaluation. 3) Application-layer information: definition of the standard information set to be exchanged for SM&C purposes.

Merri, Mario↗
NASA NTRS1994

Integrating planning and reactive control

Our research is developing persistent agents that can achieve complex tasks in dynamic and uncertain environments. We refer to such agents as taskable, reactive agents. An agent of this type requires a number of capabilities. The ability to execute complex tasks necessitates the use of strategic plans for accomplishing tasks; hence, the agent must be able to synthesize new plans at run time. The dynamic nature of the environment requires that the agent be able to deal with unpredictable changes in its world. As such, agents must be able to react to unanticipated events by taking appropriate actions in a timely manner, while continuing activities that support current goals. The unpredictability of the world could lead to failure of plans generated for individual tasks. Agents must have the ability to recover from failures by adapting their activities to the new situation, or replanning if the world changes sufficiently. Finally, the agent should be able to perform in the face of uncertainty. The Cypress system, described here, provides a framework for creating taskable, reactive agents. Several features distinguish our approach: (1) the generation and execution of complex plans with parallel actions; (2) the integration of goal-driven and event driven activities during execution; (3) the use of evidential reasoning for dealing with uncertainty; and (4) the use of replanning to handle run-time execution problems. Our model for a taskable, reactive agent has two main intelligent components, an executor and a planner. The two components share a library of possible actions that the system can take. The library encompasses a full range of action representations, including plans, planning operators, and executable procedures such as predefined standard operating procedures (SOP's). These three classes of actions span multiple levels of abstraction.

Wilkins, David E.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Extended Temperature Solar Cell Technology Development

Future NASA missions will require solar cells to operate both in regimes closer to the sun, and farther from the sun, where the operating temperatures will be higher and lower than standard operational conditions. NASA Glenn is engaged in testing solar cells under extended temperature ranges, developing theoretical models of cell operation as a function of temperature, and in developing technology for improving the performance of solar cells for both high and low temperature operation.

Landis, Geoffrey A.↗